Supreme Court Clarifies Mining Regulations in Meghalaya Tribal Areas: State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union (2019) INSC 709 (03 July 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 03 July 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 709
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can tribal communities in Meghalaya mine coal on their land without a mining lease? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the applicability of mining regulations in tribal areas. This judgment also examines the powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the extent of state control over mining activities in these regions. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The case originated from a suo moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered by the Gauhati High Court in 2012, following a tragic incident where 30 coal laborers were trapped in a coal mine, resulting in 15 fatalities. This matter was then transferred to the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Subsequently, the All Dimasa Students Union filed an application before the NGT in 2014, raising concerns about unregulated “rat-hole” coal mining in the Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya. The applicant highlighted the deaths of workers due to flooding in these mines and presented a report by Dr. O.P. Singh detailing the environmental impacts of coal mining in the state. The NGT admitted the application, noting the illegal and unscientific nature of the mining and its adverse effects on the environment and the workers.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The NGT clubbed several applications, including the transferred PIL from the Gauhati High Court and the application of the All Dimasa Students Union. Various parties, including coal mine owners, associations, and autonomous district councils, filed applications seeking to be impleaded. A coal mine owner filed a Civil Appeal against the NGT’s order dated 17.04.2014, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, granting the appellant liberty to approach the Tribunal for modification. The NGT noted serious environmental pollution due to unregulated rat-hole mining and constituted a committee to supervise transportation of already extracted coal. Subsequently, the NGT constituted a new committee due to the failure of the previous one and issued various directions from time to time.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several key legal provisions, including:

• Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section outlines the jurisdiction of the NGT over civil cases involving substantial questions relating to the environment and the implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I of the Act.
• Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section empowers the NGT to provide relief, compensation, and restitution to victims of pollution and environmental damage.
• Section 2(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section defines “environment” to include water, air, land, and their interrelationships with living creatures and property.
• Section 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section defines “substantial question relating to environment” to include instances of direct violation of statutory environmental obligations.
• The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act, 1957): This act regulates mines and mineral development under the control of the Union. Section 4(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 states that no person shall undertake any mining operations except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease.
• Section 5 of the MMDR Act, 1957: This section restricts the grant of prospecting licenses or mining leases, requiring previous approval of the Central Government for minerals specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule.
• Section 13 of the MMDR Act, 1957: This section empowers the Central Government to make rules for regulating the grant of reconnaissance permits, prospecting licenses, and mining leases.
• Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957: This section outlines penalties for contravening the provisions of the Act, including imprisonment and fines for illegal mining.
• Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: These rules, framed under Section 13 of the MMDR Act, 1957, provide procedures for obtaining prospecting licenses and mining leases, including specific provisions for land where minerals vest in persons other than the government.
• The Mines Act, 1952: This act regulates labor and safety in mines, requiring notice before commencement of mining operations and outlining duties of owners, agents, and managers.
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: This act provides for the protection and improvement of the environment.
• Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India: This schedule provides for the administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. It includes provisions for autonomous districts and councils, their powers to make laws, and the sharing of revenue from mineral royalties.
• Article 244(2) of the Constitution of India: This article states that provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
• Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India: This article provides for grants from the Union to certain States, including those with scheduled areas.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were diverse, with each party emphasizing different aspects of the case.

• State of Meghalaya: The state argued that the NGT lacked jurisdiction as the MMDR Act, 1957, is not listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010. They contended that tribals own both the land and subsoil minerals, thus not requiring mining leases from the state. They also argued that the state has no power to frame mining policy under the MMDR Act, 1957.
• State Coordination Committee of Coal Owners, Miners and Dealers Forum and Garo Hills Autonomous District Council: These appellants argued against the perpetual ban on coal mining and the appointment of the State Government as receiver/custodian of extracted coal, asserting the ownership rights of the miners. They also contended that the NGT’s orders interfered with the administration of tribal areas vested in the Autonomous District Councils.
• KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal Traders and Producers Association: This association sought protection of their members’ proprietary rights over coal mined before 17.04.2014, arguing that the NGT overreached its jurisdiction by directing vesting of their coal in the State.
• Lber Laloo: The appellant challenged the blanket ban on mining, stating it infringes on the livelihood of miners and their families.
• Union of India: The Union argued that the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, apply to tribal areas in Meghalaya and that no prior approval for mining rights has been given by the Ministry of Coal.
• Amicus Curiae: The amicus curiae submitted a report highlighting the unregulated and illegal nature of coal mining in Meghalaya, emphasizing the environmental damage and violation of constitutional principles. They argued that all extracted coal is the result of illegal mining and should be taken over by Coal India Ltd.
• Private Respondents: They argued that the MMDR Act, 1957, applies to all mining activities, including those in tribal areas, and that the State Government is responsible for preventing illegal mining. They also alleged that coal is being sold at prices much below the market value, causing losses to the revenue and stakeholders.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether orders passed by the National Green Tribunal are without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?
2. Whether provisions of Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 are applicable in Tribal areas within the State of Meghalaya, included in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?
3. Whether for mining the minerals from privately owned/community owned land in hills districts of Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a statutory requirement under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960?
4. Whether under the MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, it is the State Government, who is to grant lease for mining of minerals in privately owned/community owned land or it is the owner of the minerals, who is to grant lease for carrying out mining operations?
5. Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the mining of coal from privately owned/community owned land in hills districts of State of Meghalaya?
6. Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested in Autonomous District Councils?
7. Whether the order of National Green Tribunal dated 17.04.2014 directing for complete ban on mining is unsustainable?
8. Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/modified in the interest of State and Tribals?
9. Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute committees to submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to monitor storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action plan for restoration of environment?
10. Whether the NGT committed error in directing for constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund?
11. Whether NGT by constituting Committees has delegated essential judicial powers to the Committees and has further encroached the constitutional scheme of administration of Tribal areas under Article 244(2) and Article 275(1) and Schedule VI of the Constitution?
12. Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of NGT impugned in C.A.No.2968 of 2019 is sustainable?
13. Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after 15.05.2016 all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya is sustainable?
14. Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has already been extracted and lying in different Districts of Meghalaya be permitted to be transported and what mechanism be adopted for disposal of such coal?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied upon the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court’s reasoning was supported by various authorities:

• Thressiamma Jacob and others vs. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology and others, 2013(9) SCC 725:* This case was followed to support the view that ownership of subsoil/mineral rights should normally follow the ownership of the land.
• Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1967 SC 1081:* This case was followed to support the principle that the owner of the surface of the land is entitled to everything beneath the land unless there is an express or implied reservation in the grant.
• Techi Tagi Tara versus Rajendra Singh Bhandari and others, 2018(11) SCC 734:* This case was distinguished on facts, as it did not directly pertain to environmental degradation.
• State of Tamil Nadu versus M/s Hind Stone and others, 1981 (2) SCC 205:* This case was followed to emphasize that natural resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation.
• Lafarge Umiam Mining (pvt.) Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others, 2011(7) SCC 338:* This case was followed to highlight the need for a balance between the use of natural resources and their conservation.
• SRI TARKESHWAR SIO THAKUR JIU vs. DAR DASS DEY & CO. AND OTHERS, 1979(3) SCC 106:* This case was followed to clarify that the term “lease” in the MMDR Act, 1957, is not used in a narrow technical sense but has all the characteristics of a lease.
• State of Karanataka and others vs. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar and others, 1993 Supp.(3) 290:* This case was followed to explain that a mining lease is the right to enjoy immovable property by extracting minerals.
• Nageshwar Bux Roy vs. Bengal Coal Co., LR (1930) 58 IA 29:* This case was followed to explain that possession of a mineral field is achieved by extracting minerals.
• L. Hirday Narain vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, 1970(2) SCC 355:* This case was followed to emphasize that when a statute invests a public officer with authority, it is imperative to exercise that authority when a party with a right applies.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, emphasizing the need to balance environmental protection, tribal rights, and economic development. The Court recognized the severe environmental degradation caused by unregulated coal mining, the constitutional obligation of the State to protect the environment, and the rights of tribals to their land and minerals. The Court also emphasized the need to implement statutory mining regulations to ensure sustainable and responsible mining practices.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union provided crucial clarifications on the applicability of mining regulations in tribal areas of Meghalaya. The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in matters related to environmental degradation and clarified that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act, 1957), applies to tribal areas in Meghalaya. The Court emphasized that mining operations require a valid mining lease, and while the land and mineral rights may vest with private or community owners, the State government has a statutory control over mining activities. The Court also directed that all extracted coal be handed over to Coal India Ltd. for disposal, with proceeds distributed as per the Court’s directions. This judgment aims to strike a balance between environmental protection, tribal rights, and sustainable development, ensuring that mining activities are carried out responsibly and legally.